Wireless networks have experienced increased development in the past decade. One of the most rapidly developing areas is mobile ad-hoc networks. Physically, a mobile ad-hoc network includes a number of geographically-distributed, potentially mobile nodes sharing a common radio channel. Compared with other types of networks, such as cellular networks or satellite networks, the most distinctive feature of mobile ad-hoc networks is the lack of any fixed infrastructure. The network may be formed of mobile nodes only, and a network is created “on the fly” as the nodes transmit with each other. The network does not depend on a particular node and dynamically adjusts as some nodes join or others leave the network.
Because of these unique characteristics, routing protocols for governing data flow within ad-hoc networks are required which can adapt to frequent topology changes. Two basic categories of ad-hoc routing protocols have emerged in recent years, namely reactive or “on-demand” protocols, and proactive or table-driven protocols. Reactive protocols collect routing information when a particular route is required to a destination in response to a route request. Examples of reactive protocols include ad-hoc on demand distance vector (AODV) routing, dynamic source routing (DSR), and the temporally ordered routing algorithm (TORA).
On the other hand, proactive routing protocols attempt to maintain consistent, up-to-date routing information from each node to every other node in the network. Such protocols typically require each node to maintain one or more tables to store routing information, and they respond to changes in network topology by propagating updates throughout the network to maintain a consistent view of the network. Examples of such proactive routing protocols include destination-sequenced distance-vector (DSDV) routing, which is disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 5,412,654 to Perkins; the wireless routing protocol (WRP); and clusterhead gateway switch routing (CGSR). A hybrid protocol which uses both proactive and reactive approaches is the zone routing protocol (ZRP), which is disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 6,304,556 to Haas.
One challenge to the advancement of ad-hoc network development is that of extending such networks to encompass large numbers of nodes. One prior art attempt to do so utilizes “spine” routing, such as in the optimal spine routing (OSR) approach disclosed by Das et al. in “Routing in Ad-Hoc Networks using Minimum Connected Dominating Sets,” IEEE Int. Conf. On Commun. (ICC '97), 1997. In this approach, a spine or “virtual backbone” is defined such that each network node is no more than one hop from a spine node. Global topology (link state) is maintained at each spine node, and a link-state routing algorithm is run at each spine node to produce current routes to every destination.
Another related approach is clustered spine routing (CSR), which is disclosed by Das et al. in “Routing in Ad-Hoc Networks using a Spine,” IEEE Int. Conf. On Computer Commun. and Networks (IC3N '97), 1997. this approach is intended to extend the applicability of spine routing to larger network sizes by grouping the nodes in clusters and adding a second hierarchical level to the OSR approach. Yet another approach is known as partial knowledge spine routing (PSR) which is disclosed by Sivakumar et al. in “The Clade Vertebrata: Spines and Routing in Ad-Hoc Networks,” IEEE Symposium On Computer and Commun., 1998.
One common characteristic of each of the above prior art cluster/spine approaches is that they each rely on proactive routing. One potential drawback of proactive routing is that it typically requires a significant amount of routing overhead to maintain optimal routes to all destinations at all times. This problem may become particularly acute when applied to ad-hoc networks including a very large number of nodes.